Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 9 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 9/30/19

There Is No Economic Justification for Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     (# of views)   2 comments
Author 2529
Message Dean Baker
Become a Fan
  (40 fans)

From Truthout

GOP Quietly Moves to Open Arctic Refuge to Oil & Gas Drilling
GOP Quietly Moves to Open Arctic Refuge to Oil & Gas Drilling
(Image by YouTube, Channel: Democracy Now!)
  Details   DMCA

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of the Interior released its final environmental impact study on plans to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). While the study noted environmental risks, it gave the go-ahead for drilling in this incredibly sensitive area.

This summer, my small town of Kanab, Utah, agreed to sell water to a frac sand mine and processing plant that would be operating just over 10 miles from Zion National Park. The county planning commission also approved a conditional use permit that would allow the mine to go forward.

What both of these actions have in common is that they are gratuitous acts of environmental destruction. This is not a story of tough trade-offs between the environment and the economy.

Those do exist in the world. It would be great for the environment to cut our fossil fuel consumption by 50 percent tomorrow, but that would devastate the economy, costing many jobs. But neither drilling in the ANWR nor frac sand mining near Zion will provide any great benefit to the economy. Nor would we suffer much, if any, negative economic impact by stopping these plans. They damage treasured landscapes for no good reason.

In the case of the ANWR, the area targeted by the oil and gas industry is one of the most pristine places on the planet. Millions of caribou migrate over the terrain every year. The area is home to grizzly bears, polar bears, the arctic fox and many other rare animals. It is very sensitive terrain, with extreme temperatures. Damage from an oil spill could last for hundreds or even thousands of years.

The economic benefits of allowing drilling in this area are trivial. At best, it will be a drop in the bucket for the world's supply of oil. The George W. Bush administration tried to push drilling in the Refuge through Congress in the middle of the 2001 recession, with claims that it would lead to up 750,000 jobs.

A more serious analysis showed that, even accepting the methodology used by drilling proponents, a more plausible figure would be in the neighborhood of 50,000 jobs. This is just over 0.03 percent of total employment or approximately equal to the number of jobs generated in a typical week.

Similarly, the proposed frac sand mine near Zion will at best add a trivial number of jobs in the industry. Similar mines in Wisconsin employ on average 35 workers at a time.

In addition, frac sand is not a commodity in short supply. Industry analysts all complain about a glut in the industry, with the existing mines barely able to cover operating costs at current prices. This leaves them little prospect of recovering their capital expenditures in building a plant, which can be in the neighborhood of $75 million.

For a project of dubious profitability and questionable need (even if we accept that fracking is good), local politicians are prepared to jeopardize the extraordinary terrain on the outskirts of Zion. The mining claims of the frac sand company Southern Red Sands border the rims of Peekaboo Slot Canyon, Diana's Throne and Best Friends Animal Sanctuary.

In fact, in the case of the frac sand mine, the economics almost certainly go the other way. The economy of the immediate area is almost entirely dependent on tourism and an influx of retirees who come for the area's natural beauty. Both sources of income will almost certainly take a huge hit with a sand frac mine operating just above Kanab.

In both cases, what we are seeing is gratuitous destruction of environmental treasures, with people in power taking actions that show they don't give a damn about the world they pass on to future generations.

Clearly, there are companies that expect to profit from this degradation of the environment, but they are not the driving force here. There just is not that much money at stake. Rather, people in power are spitting in the face of people who value the environment to show they can wreak destruction for no good reason whatsoever.

 

Must Read 1   Interesting 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Dean Baker Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Dr. Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. (more...)
 
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Federal Reserve Board and the Presidential Candidates

The Deficit Hawks Target Nurses and Firefighters

The Attack of the Real Black Helicopter Gang: The IMF Is Coming for Your Social Security

The profit on the TARP and Bernie Madoff

Poverty: The New Growth Industry in America

The Real Reason For The Government Shutdown

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments


shad williams

Become a Fan
Author 63282
(Member since Apr 13, 2011), 23 fans, 63 articles, 9 quicklinks, 3044 comments, 2 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

The article makes an argument against environmental degradation and in nearly the next sentence bows down to, "It would be great for the environment to cut our fossil fuel consumption by 50 percent tomorrow,but that would devastate the economy, costing many jobs."

Ok. so on the one hand we have, ..."people in power are spitting in the face of people who value the environment to show they can wreak destruction for no good reason whatsoever."

...but that inch you gave away above about costing jobs is all the the people in power need - is not helpful at all. What you trying to be, objective? What is there about destroying the environment that can be said to be objective?

Write on the board 100 times. I will not equivocate about being a voice for the environment. I will drop all pretense of being objective despite what my friends on boards of approval would like for me to be.

Repeat.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2019 at 3:43:24 AM

  Recommend  (0+)
Help

Alexander Kershaw

Become a Fan
Author 500827
(Member since Nov 25, 2014), 3 fans, 391 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

The drilling in the Arctic as elsewhere is not about producing as much as it is about finding reserves that could potetially be produced profitably. Many summers ago I read an essay by John Keneth Galbraith in Scientific American of all places. He said that CEOs ran companies for the benefit of the stockholders was a myth. They run them for their own benefgit. Suddenly corporate behavior made better sense.

Potentially profitable oil that is discovered becomes part of a corporation's assets increasing its value and therefore its stock. Get the picture? The price of oil has little to do with supply and demand. There are 10s of thousands of capped wells that could produce but better suit the CEOs left in the ground. After the attack on Saudi refineries, prices went up dramatically. Now the price is below what it was Sept. 1. The market is mostly about speculation. The big players make money when it goes up and when it goes down.

"The Asylum: The Renegades that hijacked the oil market' is an informative and entertaining read on COMEX and hat happened after Clinton signed the Futures Modernization Act.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:40:26 PM

  Recommend  (0+)
Help